Thoughts from Panera Bread

Free WiFi is awesome. It allows you to get out of the house and do the exact same thing as always, but with scenery. Panera Bread has given me the opportunity today and I am grateful. Obviously I am a little busy these days if I am posting from here, so let me throw some quick shots out today.

Sports
I am about footballed out right now. Being in Dallas, the Cowboys occupy 75% of the airwaves this time of year at a minimum. This team has done its best to take my little interest and step on it. The high school feuds that exist or are trumped up by the talking heads have me wishing for sports talk in place of the tabloid gossip.

The Ranger's off season so far has been non-dramatic which makes me somewhat happy. We sold on the down tick with Gerald Laird. His five tool player status along with his experience merits more than a high school kid and a slow to mature AA player. I don't think the return was horrid, but it was underwhelming. So far they have yet to sign a blockbuster player. Thank Goodness! Kerry Wood and his permanent spot on the disabled list went for over 10 million a year. Thankfully we are not weighing down our future with such contracts. I don't care how good you are (Teixeira, CC, etc.), 6+ year contracts are nuts in this league. It guaranteed... results are anything but. I for one would love to see contracts have a consistent base league-wide based on experience and then having significant bonuses tied to performance. 55 home runs one year brings in 8 million extra, the slump the next year to 21 homers only brings in 2 million. How much drama could we eliminate with such a system. How much easier to keep franchise players that build a fan base. Most likely it is too simple to actually happen.

Church
I have a structural engineer teaching our Young Marrieds class at church this quarter. This bodes well for both my excitement and my comprehension. I have a subtle feeling that some us may have to be translators if he gets too technical, but I bet his lessons won't be hard to understand.

Cinema
Once again the holidays are here and movies that technical have not been released are being considered for yearly honors. Just sad. I wish they would have awards that require 100 million in sales to get be eligible. No more artsy films that are only released in 17 theaters. I am not saying that all of these films stink, but at least talk about films that people have heard of. Using my new eligibility rules from above, here are the best films of the year based upon the buzz generated by the common man:


Roundhouse to the Oscars
The Dark Knight
Iron Man
Wall-E
Get Smart
Kung Fu Panda
Indiana Jones
High School Musical 3

Not the list that you will see anywhere near the Academy Awards, but certainly the list of movies that I have been hearing about.

New Laptop
I got a new laptop about a week ago. I am so pumped. The last computer purchase that I made was before I started college in the summer of 2000. I went with an Asus that I got off of NewEgg. It has an Intel Core2Duo P8600 processor, 4 Gigs of RAM, a 320 Gig Hard Drive, and a huge 1 Gig NVidia GeForce 9650 GT graphics card. The best games from my old system look like an Atari on an HD TV. Oh, and I got this since I started grad school this fall...

Heard While Making This Post
Weezer - Possibilities
The Calling - Wherever You Will Go
Jimmy Eat World - Sweetness

A Rebuilding Year

So yesterday my candidate lost. What am I going to do about it? More importantly, what is the party or movement going to do about it? I think that there are several good answers.

First though, some perspective. The popular vote so far appears to have shifted 4% since the last election. That is all that it took to switch the party affiliation of the President. If it can swing 1% a year for 4 years, it can switch right back. So, in other words, it is a very attainable goal in 2012. Also, consider the 1992 election that brought forth a 1994 redo of Congress. In 2 years, a lot can change in the house.

So, back to my original question. What must be done to to bring Conservatism back to the top?

1. Remain True to Our Principles
   It is time to stop redefining Conservatism. We have a great mission statement, so let's stick to it. We promote individual freedom through limited government. Is that so hard to follow through on? We can not let power go to our heads and start adding to that. The past administration did a bad job or sticking to it and Congress went right along. Government expanded under Republican control and guess what, the people saw through it.
   
   If you miss this one, many of the points below become irrelevant.


2. Switch to the Positive
   This means that it is time for us to update our message. People want to be inspired to do great things, not scared away from evil. The best way that I know how to explain this is through the evolution of church evangelism. In the 50s, the church could have revival's and convert people because they were going to hell. Likewise, voters would vote against the scary Commies blowing us all to... well hell. Now, we have a different evangelism style in the church. We preach on love and forgiveness and grace. We make it attractive, not scared out of your mind. Why do we do this? First off, it is more effective. Second, our culture has shifted this direction. Conservative candidates must make this shift as well in order to stay viable. They must advertise the great strides that can be made rather than using fear-mongering as the chief get out the vote effort.


3. Quit Whining
   People go with winners. They want someone who acts like a winner. Whining about the media every day is not the action of a winner, but a sore loser. Let's make the best out of what we have rather than complaining about what we don't have.


4. Redefine the Face of the Movement
   To piggy-back on point number 2, things have changed over the years. Methods used in 1990 are not as effective today. Therefore our inspiring leaders of the past are starting to become hindrances. On the 'conservative' radio station in town, we get 8 hours of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin. Let's realize something here. They are not converting many people to the movement. They are in the business to well, have a successful business. That means catering to their clients. They use tactics like point #3. Again, they are not winning people to the movement in any significant way.
   
   What kind of leader or voice of the movement am I looking for? Someone who inspires people to better themselves, someone who educates people on how they can make their family situation better, and someone who makes the movement attractive and enticing to newcomers.


5. Walk the Walk (Strict Ethics Control)
   We need to be the movement of the American Family. And frankly, the American Family wants us to be just that We align closely to them on many of the social issues. Now we have to follow it up with upright living.
   
   We need to take decisive and immediate action to curb ethics problems. This goes from weird perversions to being buddy-buddy with all of the lobbyists. No more shenanigans. With the presidential election still close to 50-50, why are the Senate and House so one-sided? One of the major reasons is that politicians here and there keep getting into scandals. I am frankly proud of people voting against their party to get the scum out of office. We will not regain or hold Congress with a continuing record of somewhat frequent scandal.


6. Educate
   I don't think that we have a done a good job of educating the general public about the superiority of our ideas and principles. We have facts on our side folks. We have results and prosperity to show for it. Nobody seems to know it though. I do not fault an ignorant voter for voting the other way. I mean ignorant with no condescending tone. A lot of voters just don't have all of the information to make a truly informed decision. We must do better about getting the facts out there.


7. Keep the Message Simple
   We have to build and maintain a brand that is easy to define and understand. I like a lot of things that Ross Perot has to say for instance, but he bored more people than anyone with his TV specials back in 1992. It was a big joke about his flip charts and such. They may have contained great information, but it was nothing that would become a catchphrase or grab your attention. We have to develop our mission and then simplify it so that it is easy to spread and remember.


8. Appeal to Young Voters
   For the life of me I don't know why we can't do better here. We are the Keep Government Out of My Business group. This stay out of my business idea is a rallying cry for young people. We need to expand on this effort greatly.


9. Target Minorities
   That is right, I said it. African-American (AA) and Latin-American (LA) voters are a huge voting block. We have a lot to say to them.
   
   For the AA group, we have railed against programs that help them more than other groups. We have to shift to instead promote the great opportunity that can be realized by leaving those programs in the dust.
   
   For the LA group, we have become the "Get out your shotgun and run 'em back across the border" party in many respects. I like in Texas, I see it. We must expand our opportunity of the American Dream to LA voters without threatening them constantly. We must completely redo our immigration / deportation stance. We need to look at the history of immigration and how it has benefited our country. We must deal with the realities of the times and reach out to people.


10. Become Vocal
    The silent majority is a problematic paradigm. We are getting totally overrun in certain arenas because we just don't stand up for what we believe and voice our opinion. This goes back to #1, #2, and #6. I am not talking about becoming a loud obnoxious group, just one that knows what it stands for and is willing to talk about it.

This is very doable. Let's start right now and see what we can accomplish.

This post can almost be flipped to be a religious discussion now that I read it through. Winning people over to great ideas has a lot of things in common apparently.

Tomorrow I will post my goofy suggestions for how to make the election cycle both simpler and better.

The Big Day

Finally, after too many hours of analysis, election day is here. I won't go into too much detail on this issue or that issue. I think everyone has frankly already decided. I got my "I Voted" sticker today. My new solution to the federal deficit is to eliminate the "I Voted" stickers from the budget. I was even given a 2nd sticker. What a waste of taxpayer money.

I posted earlier this year about reading the book, Free to Choose by Milton Friedman. It is just excellent. Many people do not know that it was a television series back in 1980. Now a website has the video up streaming to you for free. These are well worth checking out. You can even see the goofy intros that were added in 1990. Go visit http://www.ideachannel.tv/.

Finally, some thoughts for the election day.

Luke 12: 22-31

Then Jesus said to his disciples: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?

"Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.

Philippians 4:4-7

Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Uncommon Knowledge

Today I want to highlight an excellent program that is free online. The show Uncommon Knowledge is run by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. This show reminds me of the American Studies lectures that I heard throughout college. Each episode is 5-8 minutes in length and is in the question and answer format. The topics of conversation are usually centered public policy and more specifically politics.

Peter Robinson is the moderator and does an excellent job of phrasing questions in a way that encourages the guest to share his or her vast knowledge and expert opinions. He is a former Reagan speech writer and author who now works at a policy think tank.

Interview with Andrew Klaven - This accomplished author talks about his distaste for empty religion and how he came to an atheist view of the world and then how he found his faith. I am extremely impressed by his gifted way to articulate his faith from an outsider's point of view, meaning someone who wasn't born into their current beliefs. I think that you will find this interview very interesting, I find it fascinating.

Scatter Shooting

• I am re-reading a book that was once a college assignment. Because of the nature of required reading, I gave it the minimal amount of attention. I am really enjoying the second and more thoughtful look at Milton Friedman's Free to Choose. Friedman is a Nobel Prize winner for economics and applies his theories to just about everything in this book. The political implications are especially striking. This book was written in the late 1970's, but it quite relevant in its discussion of oil prices and other trends that seem to be affecting us again. Some of the quotes that struck me so far are:

  We have shifted from a expectation of equality of opportunity to the expectation of equality of results

  Experience shows that that once government undertakes an activity, it is seldom terminated.

  Major wars aside, government spending from 1800 to 1929 did not exceed about 12 percent of the national income. Two-thirds of that was spent by state and local governments, mostly for schools and roads. As late as 1928, federal government spending amounted to about 3 percent of the national income.

  (Today the federal government spend 6 times that, about 18% of national income)

  Sincerity is a much overrated virtue.

  (In other words, being convinced that something is correct does not make it so)

  We refer to ourselves as a free private enterprise society, as a capitalist society. Yet in terms of the ownership of corporate enterprise, we are about 46% socialist... The federal government is entitled to 46 cents out of every dollar... The federal government therefore owns 46% of every corporation.

  (This was using the 1979 high tax rate. Change the # to the current standards. It is quite a thought.)


• Fred Thompson's speech last night at the Republican National Convention reminded me of why I liked him so much during the primary race. No, he is not the most polished public speaker. He does however have a keen sense of how to break apart the issues in a way that is easily understandable. He knows how to refute the other side in a clear concise way. He is very good on policy, just not flashy enough.


• I recently watched Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The 1977 Spielberg film that shows aliens and such. One of the biggest questions was how well the graphics would hold up. For the vast majority of the movie they did a very good job. The aliens at the end felt somewhat more like claymation than a modern movie would present them, but that was my only main complaint. Richard Dreyfuss does a great job of playing a lunatic. His ability to play that role sometimes scares me. Is he really acting? I was surprised at the novelty of the film. In recent years we had the film Signs. A lot of the ways in which they show you alien interaction were just copied from Close Encounters I think. They were very similar. Communicating with colored tones... ok. I guess that is one way we could do it. I would give it a 3 out of 5. Some of the crazy scenes went on a bit long for me.


• Our small group at church is reading Everyday Christianity by Grumpy Smith this quarter. So far it seems like an enjoyable read. Since I go to church with his daughter Miranda, it is even more fun to laugh at his stories. His ordinary man approach looks promising.


• Preseason College Poll - Is there anything more worthless?

re: John McCain and Habakkuk

The following entry is entirely in response to my friend Philip's blog post. I found that my comment was getting very wordy and also worth a post here. To summarize, he asks the question, "Why vote for an only sorta good candidate?". And secondly, "If you don't like him that much, why not vote for the other guy?"

Great question to ask. Let me give you my logic and my worries on this thought.

1. I feel that I have a responsibility to vote. I have great freedom that many people in the world do not have. Many people died to gain this freedom. I take it seriously. This means that I am not going to 'not' vote if the perfect candidate is not there. I am fairly sure that there will never be a perfect candidate. Spending all of time complaining about the lack of a perfect candidate and taking no action seems like a waste of time to me. Therefore I will take a stand and make a choice, even with a limited or imperfect set to choose from. So my first decision is that I will participate in the vote.


2. The way I vote in virtually all elections is to line up the candidates on a whole array of issues and see who I agree with on each issue. Normally it is fairly lopsided. The candidate with more check marks wins the vote. Now, when I compare the two candidates that are in the race now, I get the same lopsided affect. So my second decision is that I will vote for the best person according to my personal philosophies, thoughts, etc.


3. Now, a question that is often asked these days is, "Why not punish your party by voting for the other guy because they have strayed from their core values?" This is a valid question.
   
   
   • In the past years, McCain for instance has been known as a fringe Republican. In many instances he has undermined various party positions. He has also not being a traditional conservative. He prefers the straight talk Maverick label. I think of his as one of Moderates stuck in a 2 party system. However, as fringe as he may be, he is still miles apart from Obama. These are arbitrary numbers here, so do not take these seriously. If my ideal candidate was 100 out of 100, I would consider McCain probably a 65. My favorite primary contender was probably a 90. Obama is closer to a 30. Now Mr. 90 is no longer in the race. The highest person left is Mr. 65. And 65 is a lot better in my mind than 30. So part 1 of this answer is that I still think that McCain is a lot better than Obama. So lowering my standards to punish the party really seems like a contradiction of point 2. Also, I will say that if Mr. 90 was still in the race as a 3rd party, I would vote for him.
   
   
   
   • But the stronger argument in my mind is the following. Laws that are enacted get ingrained in our society. They stick fairly fast and people get used to them. In punishing my party, I can enable harm to be done that will last a very long time. This is my fear. I look at legislation that was enacted for the New Deal around 70 years ago. Some of those programs (Social Security being the obvious) are already straining our budget these days and will only get worse. Again in the 1960s, the Great Society legislation was passed. It had its plus and minuses. Some of the minuses in my opinion are the Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare systems that strain our budget as well. These are pieces of legislation that have lasting fiscal effects on our nation. We are so dependent upon them now, that it is nearly impossible to get rid of them. This is just from a financial standpoint. The nomination of Supreme Court Justices is a vastly important function of the President. Do we want more rulings that allow municipalities to take our land or deny rights to the unborn? I personally say no. I see much more harm that can be done to my country in the long term. I do not think that it is worthwhile to punish my party.


4. Since Philip brought it up, I do not feel a calling to punish my party or my nation. There may very well be one, but I am unaware of it. I think that there are certain citizens who are hoping for this, but I am not one of them. Also, if it is the providence of God, then I doubt that I will be able to stand in the way.

An Outsider's View

Alexander Solzhenitsyn was a man that was before my time in many respects. Therefore when I heard that he had passed away a few days back, I did a little research to learn more about him. He won a Nobel prize for his Gulag expose that brought to light many of the problems with the former USSR. In 1978 he gave a speech to graduates of Harvard that really shows off his skill. He was able to use his outsider's view of the U.S. to look at us and point out places that needed improvement in order to better our society. I will highlight some of them below.

• When the modern Western States were created, the following principle was proclaimed: governments are meant to serve man, and man lives to be free to pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration). Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state. Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness, in the morally inferior sense which has come into being during those same decades. In the process, however, one psychological detail has been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to obtain them imprints many Western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to conceal such feelings. Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development. The individual's independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, leading them to physical splendor, happiness, possession of material goods, money and leisure, to an almost unlimited freedom of enjoyment. So who should now renounce all this, why and for what should one risk one's precious life in defense of common values, and particularly in such nebulous cases when the security of one's nation must be defended in a distant country?
  
  Even biology knows that habitual extreme safety and well-being are not advantageous for a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to reveal its pernicious mask.

  He points out that living a life of total abundance leads to a weaker society. He also shows how man's search for contentment is usually never ending and constantly yearns for more.

• The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.

  This quote really focuses in on a societal shift that I think hurts us as a whole. What this points out is that the freedom to do whatever I please for freedom's sake leads to moral decay and a sense of being totally shielded by rights. When you fall into this mindset, you lose your sense of being obligated to treat others well because of the focus on your own freedom.

• Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas.
  
  Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the communist East a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has granted Western journalists their power, for how long a time and with what prerogatives?

  He really takes both the press and their readers/viewers to task. Why do I say readers? Because we demand instant knowledge and instant perfection that is unattainable by human standards.

• All the glorified technological achievements of Progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the Twentieth century's moral poverty which no one could imagine even as late as in the Nineteenth Century.

  This is a sharp jab that really hits home. We pride ourself on our achievement, but at what cost.

• There is a disaster, however, which has already been under way for quite some time. I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness... ...If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature. It cannot unrestrained enjoyment of everyday life. It cannot be the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then cheerfully get the most out of them. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become an experience of moral growth, so that one may leave life a better human being than one started it... ...It would be retrogression to attach oneself today to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Social dogmatism leaves us completely helpless in front of the trials of our times.
  
  Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?

  This is by far my favorite quote of his. He really calls out man's search for achievement and asks whether it is all worthwhile without a higher spiritual calling.

Inter-Church Communication

As a long time member of the church of Christ, I can say that one of our tenants or main features is how each and every congregation is independent of the others. We have no church hierarchy and we have no standard of belief other than the Bible. This has allowed the church to both emulate the 'New Testament model' and build leadership in every location.

Unfortunately this has also created self-sufficient environments that can become somewhat isolated from others. The church that I regularly attend is undergoing a remodeling project and is meeting elsewhere in the afternoon. My wife and I decided to attend an extremely close congregation this week that we have passed on the road many times, but never been to. I am astonished to find a very nice group of people that I have never met. Astonished is a strong word, but many people there had never heard of my congregation, and I would guess less than 5 or 10 percent of my congregation had ever heard of them.

It certainly seems like we could get together in a collaborative service effort or even an ice cream social more often and get exposure to more sides of our faith in the same town...

An Alternative Choice

This week has been a hard week for Dallas. Our Cowboys, who we hoped in the summer would make the playoffs, did not win the Super Bowl. In fact, they didn't even win a single playoff game. For most of my life, football has been 3rd on list of sports to follow. For professional teams it always was ordered Texas Rangers, Dallas Mavericks, and then the Dallas Cowboys. The Dallas Stars made a brief run up the charts in 99 and 2000, but that was short lived. This year I got caught up in Cowboys mania and they hopped over the disappointing Mavericks. Now though, they are back down to their normal third.

I say all of that to set up the fact that I did not watch the playoff game last Sunday. In fact, I didn't listen to much of it. Now most of the city was enthralled with the game. I was in fact curious. However, it was the weekend and my wife was craving my attention. This is a dilemma for men everywhere, and one that I think we too often choose incorrectly. I decided for one day, to give up my sports and spend time with her. I could have done this bitterly and with many snide comments, but I think I kept them to a minimum. Our afternoon involved the oh so exciting grocery shopping and other errands. In between shops I caught snippets of the game. While we were driving to get some chips and salsa for dinner, I decided to turn off the radio for a bit and just drive. We drove in silence for probably 10 minutes holding hands and it was pleasant to say the least. When I got to the restaurant and the nostril-clearing salsa, I saw on the television that the Cowboys were about to throw away the game in the 4th quarter. On my way back to the car I had an epiphany that I was so glad that I had not stressed about the game, but rather enjoyed so much just sitting in silence with her. Coincidentally, the next morning I flipped to I John and read chapter 2 verses 15-17

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.

I think for once I chose the right thing, and I am really happy that it was the Cowboys and not the Rangers in the playoffs. I needed a warm up round.

Ainulindale vs The Magician's Nephew

I have recently read both the Ainulindale[A] and The Magicians Nephew[MN] and thought I would do a comparison between the two. Now the Ainulindale is part of The Silmarillion if you actually want to find it. This can also be seen as a comparison between J. R. R. Tolkien (author of the Ainulindale) and C. S. Lewis (author of The Magicians Nephew). These two were part of a literary group known as the Inklings and probably shared each of these stories with the group. Therefore I think that these two accounts probably have some each person interwoven into them even though they reflect the author in the end.


First off, both of these stories are most likely elaborations on the the biblical genesis story. Both of the authors were Christians and no doubt had interesting views of how it all began. The theme of music is shared by both is used as the method of creation. No doubt both men had visited cathedrals and heard choirs of voices resounding throughout the massive buildings. The view of creation as a beautiful harmony seems almost natural if you have heard certain masterpieces. The instrument of the music is different in each. In [A] the Ainur are created by Iluvatar (represents God) and they in turn sing the part of the song that was put in them. In [MN] the singer is a singular person in the lion Aslan (represents the Christ, son of God). The Lewis version of having the Son involved in creation reflects thoughts presented at the beginning of the gospel John. John chapter 1 verse 3 states

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Aslan therefore is the personification of this scripture. Tolkien's presentation could be best described as God creating angels and giving them a purpose. Those angels then fulfill their purpose in creating.

The literary style in [A] is much closer to the actual biblical account of creation than [MN]. Tolkien himself was a linguistics professor and wrote many languages for his books. This knowledge of the origins of many languages most likely caused him to write a structured and believable account of creation. For his writing style can easily be seen to closely mimic ancient stories from almost all origins. This style can be perceived as distant or detached to some people, but it is nonetheless accurate from a historical standpoint. Lewis on the other hand uses [MN] to take the reader to the date of creation and makes them an observer. The creator seems much more personable. He even laughs with creation. Most people tend to prefer this version because it seems more personable and fits better with modern times.

The timeline presented by Tolkien is somewhat vague. For an unknown amount of time creation was occurring being designed. The actual creation process in his account takes many centuries to complete. Lewis has the account occur in a singular day and would fit more literally with the Genesis account. I think that you also have to take into account the intended audience. While Lewis's audience was explicitly stated to be children, Tolkien's book takes on a much more scholarly take. This take presents a much more serious and intricate look at things than a mere children's book would.

Taking all things into consideration, it is hard for me to choose a favorite. Although from a personal standpoint, [MN] gives me a much better feeling.

When I Look To The Stars

. : Religion : .

... is a great song by Switchfoot.

It seems to capture my sentiments about the natural universe around me. I am constantly in awe of what God has built around me. This picture today inspired even more wonder on my part. It is a picture of a solar flare using Earth's size as a scale.

Justin the Martyr

. : Religion : .

In preparing for a discussion that I am leading tonight, I ran across a lot of information on Justin the Martyr. I find this guy to be quite articulate for his time and quite bold.

I read through his apology and got a good sense of 2nd century Christian beliefs. For those of you who are not familiar with him, he lived between 100 and 165 AD. He grew up in the area of Samaria but traveled all over the place. Around 150 AD he wrote to the Emperor and defended Christians from widespread persecution. I found several quotes from him to be fascinating.

This is his response as to why Christians allow themselves to be persecuted by the authorities. I found it to be a great statement of faith.

And concerning our being patient of injuries, and ready to serve all, and free from anger, this is what He said: 'To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the other; and him that taketh thy cloak or coat, forbid not. And whosoever shall be angry, is in danger of the fire. And every one that compelleth thee to go with him for a mile, follow him two. And let your good works sine before men, that they, seeing them, may glorify your Father which is in heaven.'

I find this next statement a particularly bold statement in regards to who we worship. He basically says, I will give you everything you ask except my faith and worship.

Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment. But if you pay no regard to our prayers and frank explanations, we shall suffer no loss, since we believe (or rather, indeed are persuaded) that every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed, and will render account according to the power he has received from God, as Christ intimated when He said, 'To who God has given more, of him shall more be required.'

And lastly, he describes the 'church services' that he is used to participating in.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.